User talk:Prototime/Archives

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Education stages

 * 1) Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'."
 * 2) Why change the template to use an unusual terminology that isn't reflected by the articles to which it points? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you've been inserting in various articles the terminology for wehich you've argued and which the consensus was against. Please stop this. Also, don't change British English to U.S. English unless there's good reason. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that, in this country at least (as well as in Australia, new Zealand, and most others to the best of my knowledge, as the World Bank agrees; see also this journal), "tertiary education" is most commonly used to refer to all education past secondary &mdash; Colleges of F.E., undergraduate courses, graduate courses, etc. The "tertiary education" article now reflects that, and the lack of an article on undergraduate education is a minor problem; we need something (it may be that there's already a suitable article under some other name). --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Having found even more evidence (which is at Talk:Post-secondary education for the use of "tertiary education" simply to mean "post-secondary education" (in many countries, as well as the OECD and the World Bank), and no evidence against, I've merged the two articles, and made [[Tertiary education a redirect. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammar
Your grammar rocks, I just want to say. =) When I joined Wiki a few months ago I didn't expect to have to correct edits more than I do add new information.  What's worse is people adding in new info that I agree with, but they leave out a comma or mispunctuate!  So their good deed just kind of.. got tarnished.  ..Anyway, I'm saying this here as a random compliment for your edits to the Toph article.  I tweaked a minor thing or two, but I didn't want to make the impression that what you had done was wrong and unappreciated.  --Crisu 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the compliment! I agree with your frustration at the lack of appropriate grammar that is present on numerous Wikipedia pages and do what I can to fix them up (though I wouldn't quite call myself an expert on the subject).  This seems especially apparent on many Avatar: The Last Airbender pages, and I wanted to spruce up the Toph page at its creation so it makes things easier for its long future of edits.  You made some great edits as well... now, hopefully we can maintain the quality of the page! At any rate though, thanks again for the compliment! Prototime 19:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely certain how to respond to the recent 'original research' claims. I am noticing it and getting rather annoyed by its presence, but I've never been a good debater.  As far as his defense, I'll agree that the first sentence he cited is a little wordy.  The second one, though.. I don't know; it just sounds unfair to accuse it.  Should we have to add "it is speculated that" to all these statements in order for them to be acceptable?  It's unfortunate there probably won't be a Toph episode until another week; else we'd get our new information and be able to settle this.  ...If I had to choose, I'll agree to his changing the tag to "notverified," because "originalresearch" just looks so offending (though I really want no tags at all). --Crisu 21:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the claims are ridiculous. Even if the first statement he cited could be construed as (weak) conjecture (the second one obviously is not conjecture), the argument being presented is not strong enough to warrant a tag on the page, unless he can provide ample more evidence (that we're apparantly blind to).  I posted a rebuttal on the discussion page.  If nothing else, you may want to just endorse my comments... maybe enough people disagreeing with him will make him back down. Prototime 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On a random note, I'm glad you're using the "seismic sense" term I coined. ^_^  It's a neat-sounding phrase.  --Crisu 05:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The phrase fits quite nicely. Though I must say that this argument is beginning to wear on my nerves... Prototime 03:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You made a good point today about the number of conjectures we've been presented with so far. Since it's not the majority of the article but a few sentences, this process probably would have went more smoothly if they had just removed them and then discussed about it.  But oh well; I think it's coming to an end hopefully.  --Crisu 06:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's getting really petty now... those minor little things are not deserving a tag on the page. I don't understand why they just don't fix the problem themselves.  There shouldn't be any doubt as to what information came from where; there's only one source!  It isn't possible to list any others at this point!
 * I'm about *this* close to removing the unnecessary tag. This debate is really getting old (and pointless) quick. Prototime 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm about ready to kill the tag myself, too. It has just about lost all its meaning.  We've discussed this issue to the point that I'm sure we all understand that we all want to make this article accurate and doubt-free.  Any other serious editor would now notice the huge talk page about it, too.  (Heh, I'm suddenly tempted to write an APA citation for the TV episode itself on the article, so I can fulfill the tag's request.)  --Crisu 02:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. It's great that you went ahead and removed the tag.  It seems this debate can finally be laid to rest. Prototime 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah. I hope I did it discreetly enough.  And I think I did it with fair reason.  If they still want to talk, they can; let's just leave the article looking pretty and tagless. --Crisu 22:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject
Yeah I'll gladly help clean up the Avatar page. I have all the episodes downloaded, so I have the references. The only thing I need to do is get up to speed on wiki use. H2P 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to delete this message after you read it. I wanted to draw your attention to the talk page of the series main page. I'm discussing adding character pictures to the page and I want to get a green light from you and Redsparta. H2P 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You sure enjoy that AWB don't you. H2P 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. How many times you think we're going to change those links? This feels like at least the second and third. H2P 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I was gonna ask you about changing the creatures page, but it looks like you already renamed it. H2P 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

HA HA, whoops. Can't belive I just now saw that. I used that guys signature to figure out the coding for mine and like an idiot didn't change the names. Wow I'm dumb. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We're changing the names again?

I saw that the major characters page changed its name again or there was some sort of redirect or something. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Avatar: The Last Airbender
No problem; working on this sort of stuff is an enjoyable break from my other WikiProject work ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:KingBumi.png
Thanks for uploading Image:KingBumi.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cut and pasting articles
Please don't do this. The GFDL requires that all edits be attributed to an editor. If you cut and paste to move an article, the editing history is not preserved. Please request that an administrator preform the move at Requested moves to rename the article Uncle Iroh, esspecially if a consensus already exists to move the article. Kevin_b_er 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, sorry about that. Thanks for pointing out the oversight. Prototime 03:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dispute on Avatar episodes
Not a problem at all, the RfC approach would be the best way to handle this. Good thought.--Fyre2387 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Father's Wish
I have commented on the sock puppet case about this. Are there any other IP addresses or accounts left over? Please comment on the case. Thanks, Iola k ana |T  13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked into the Father's Wish sockpuppet case and I don't believe that we're looking at the same user. I have posted my reasons on the Suspected sock puppets/Father's Wish page. Neil916 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Category:Alumni of the University of Central Florida Please see Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 17. I have proposed a new name for this category. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for peer review
The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Chaos Control
The following is the script for Shadow the Hedgehog (taken from GameFaqs.com):


 * SONIC: Those black creatures just warped the Comet down to the surface using Chaos Control!


 * SHADOW: That's why you needed the Chaos Emeralds...


 * BLACK DOOM: *laugh* Precisely. The Comet's velocity isn't powerful enough to pass through another planet's atmosphere. The Emeralds amplify the space-time control powers of Chaos Control. We need them to charge to full power. It's the perfect plan. That's why I needed the professor to help me.

Doom is only concerned with explaining why he needed all 7 Emeralds - to amplify Chaos Control to full power. Using his explaination to say Chaos Emeralds are not needed is original research. Also there is a large amount of evidence saying specifically that a Chaos Emerald is used to induce Chaos Control (including the official Japanese site Sonic Channel, look at the paragraph in the Chaos Control article for more).

As for Shadow's use of Chaos Control in Last Way, Black Doom merely floated away with Shadow hot on his tail (saying that anything happened during Last Way to change that is equally as speculative as saying nothing changed it, if not more speculative), and it has been shown on several occassions that the power of the Chaos Emeralds can be tapped into without being in direct physical contact with them (Black Doom never touched the Emeralds to do a fully powered Chaos Control to warp down the Black Comet, Perfect Chaos had the Emeralds floating around its head as it finished draining their power, Shadow didn't use Chaos Control on Prison Island in SA2 to save Rouge until he finally got into the room where she and the Emeralds were trapped in, but still didn't touch them when he did, so if he didn't need an Emerald since the beginning why would Sonic Team continue to say he does in more recent bios and cutscenes?) Cigraphix (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

DSM-IV Proposal
Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV. Input is being collected on our talk page. Thanks! Mindsite (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of List of creatures of Avatar: The Last Airbender
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject University of Central Florida
--Scpmarlins (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverting
Thank you for your efforts to revert vandalism. However, please refrain from insulting the vandals, as this will only fuel the negative attention that they desire. Thank you. A8 UDI  22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

/* Team Dark */
There's only one reason why I keep editing the Sonic Hero's page....that is because what I'm saying is true. It has all the information in the Sonic Wiki and in the Sonic Hero's instruction booklet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.135.147 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 February 2011


 * The Sonic Wiki is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. And after looking through the manual, I do not see this "leadership" status clarified anywhere; your belief about who is the team "leader" seems to be based on your own inferences from reading the short team descriptions.  For example, just because Rouge played an important role in forming Team Dark does not mean that she then became its "leader."  If I'm missing something in the manual that makes explicit these character's leadership roles, then by all means add the material back in and provide the page citation to the manual.  Otherwise, the information constitutes your own analysis and synthesis of the material and should not be included in the article.  –Prototime  19:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Case law as reliable sources
Hello:

Thank you for the question. It appears you have a misunderstanding about what is meant by the citation requirement for reliable sourcing. The issue is not whether the case law you point to is reliable or not-- but whether the citation directly discusses the subject of the article. In the article The Star Chamber the section contains an interpretation of the film's depiction of events, and then cites court cases to support the claims-- but has no actual source for the interpretation. That is why it's Original Research -- it's presenting a novel interpretation.

Remember, the mantra for Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth," as noted at Verifiability:
 * The threshold for inclusion is...whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

What the section is doing, would be construed as a "Synthesis" -- creating an argument that, "The movie says X about the law, but these court cases say Y, and thus the movie is Z."

So stated at Reliable sources and original research:
 * Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position—called original synthesis, or original SYN—is prohibited by the NOR policy.

Hope that clarifies why the section you added was Original Research. If you can find a published article which directly discusses The Star Chamber and the legal issues that the section raises, those would be appropriate to cite. --HidariMigi (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies: I had initially assumed that you were the original editor of the section, and had replied as such. In reviewing the edit log, I see that while you had edited the section in January, it was actually originated by an anon IP in December 2008. Sorry about the assumption. I've edited the above to correct that. --HidariMigi (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved article discussion and replied at Talk:The Star Chamber --HidariMigi (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Message
Why did you recently send me a message about some kind of warning?, recently I haven't edited anything except for some extra information on a Ratchet and Clank character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.135.147 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. The warning I posted on the talk page associated with your IP address concerns several inappropriate edits that a user of that IP address made back in February to the Sonic Heroes page. Presumably you are not the same person as that editor; Wikipedia simply shows that you and this previous editor as using the IP address (which is not uncommon on Wikipedia), so you may safely ignore the warning message I posted back on February 17, 2011 as it was not directed to you personally. –Prototime 05:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Widener Law Ranking
Hey - U.S. News changed its ranking format in the 2012 edition of Best Law Schools. It gives a numerical value to the first 150 or so schools and considers everything else 2nd Tier. The 3rd and 4th Tiers have been banished. 98.235.125.61 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Any objection to changing it back? I don't want to piss anybody off! Thanks!!! 98.235.125.61 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the info. Do you have a link to your source info? I haven't been able to find anything to corroborate that, but admittingly I haven't searched too thoroughly either. Thanks. – 02:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll get you an article...it shook up a lot of law school blogs this summer. 98.235.125.61 (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Article re: U.S. News and World Report Law School Rankings: http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=216:us-news-hello-unemployment-goodbye-ttt&catid=42:news&Itemid=71

and

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/the-u-s-news-law-school-rankings-are-out/

Thanks! 98.235.125.61 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool, thank you! – 12:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sonic 06
I'm fine with your last edit to Sonic 06's legacy section. Looks like we can compromise on how it is now then. Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me   14:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! Glad things have worked out. Thanks. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 03:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited George Lakoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Press (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Democracy
I just went through the talk:democracy archive and found that almost every one of my edits has a precedent in the form of someone saying it should be done, but isn't bold enough to do it. The merge, for example, was proposed 3 years ago. Just wanted to air that somewhere. &rarr;Yaniv256talkcontribs 09:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you've taken the initiative to be bold and improve the article! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling if I just changed the way it looks and gave it a little push it has a much better chance to attract quaility edits like your last one. Who knows where it will go? FA no longer seems such a remote prospect, does it? &rarr;Yaniv256talkcontribs 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article definitely looks much better now, and I agree that it may attract more editors and quality edits as a result. I think the biggest obstacle in the way of FA status are the lack of references throughout a few sections of the article, but with a little more work it may be up to Good Article status pretty soon--and hopefully the improved page will attract editors who can help fill in the reference gaps so we can get it up to FA status! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously proposing that constitutional monarchies - countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg - are not democracies? If so, I suggest you edit the article to reflect that properly. I suspect, however, that it would be taken down in 15 minutes and ridiculed. You are confusing the idea of "rule" - that is, the exercise of power - with sovereignty - that is, the highest form of authority and the ultimate right to make law. Indeed, if you wish to hold to that, please point to me of a country which is a democracy. The United States certainly isn't on that definition. And even if you meant practical exercise of power, the idea of "rule by the people" as taken in any literal form is nonsensical. Almost all democracies are representative democracies where 'the people' (whoever they are) do not make everyday decisions of government. Indeed, their representatives may pass laws that a majority of 'the people' disapprove of - that doesn't mean to say the country ceases to be a democracy. Gonefishing (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A very fine distinction perhaps, but I appreciate your explanation. And yes, perhaps it was an impulsive revert in light of the numerous constitutional monarchies that essentially function as democracies. Go ahead and restore your edit. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've removed it again. So that people don't think I'm starting an edit war of some kind, I've stated in the Summary that you agreed to the change (without implying whether you agree with it or not). Gonefishing (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Forms of government
You should probably rewrite the lead of the article, which states "Bureaucracy is defined as a form of government". Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I noticed that as well. It contradicts the statement immediately beforehand that defines the term as a "group of specifically non-elected officials within a government." I'll do some reworking in the next day or two. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please review the definition provided in original article "Bureaucracy" as well as origin of the word "bureau – desk or office and gr. κράτος kratos – rule or political power." It is equal to term Techno-cracy, Aristo-cracy etc. It should be understand that bureaucracy as well as aristocracy, technocracy etc. is replacement for demo-cracy. In democratic society we need administration (civil service) not usurpations for domination. Bureaucracy should be understand as form of undemocratic government or spoiled social service. Administration ought to be executor and only executor of legislative orders - in democratic society they are the parliament statutes. In addition parliament should be only representation of people (i.e. demos). On other world it parliament needs legitimation of people to be democratic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.138.176 (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I provided to you RATIONALE here on you talk page. I did not see respond except reverting. I free to make changes since you avoid discussion instead forcing you edition. Please start the discussion and give direction to it if you want make reverts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.138.242 (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing your rationale. I have not been very active on Wikipedia over the past week and I appreciate your patience. I am unsure what you mean that my response to your rationale was a revert, for I have not reverted your edit since the original revert (until moments ago, after I posted my rationale on the template talk page). Let's have this discussion on the talk page for the template so that other editors are more likely to see and participate in the conversation. You should note that other editors have already addressed this topic on that talk page and agreed that "bureaucracy" does not belong on the template. That discussion, which I have now contributed to as well, is at Template_talk:Forms_of_government. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting discussion. However reverting again my edit is EDIT WAR. I will give you all pro- for correct theory on the place you did choose. Please however do not start vote for changing and extending query. The scientific work is the issue, not election for. Logic answer to simple question lead to correct (logic) conclusion, and only the logic is correct in scientific work. It is not voting of group of devotees. It is rather terrorist (shouters) than scientific work.--209.183.138.250 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to have this discussion. However, I would like to point that I not was starting an edit war with you by reverting again, but rather, I was upholding a previously-established consensus among editors (as indicated on the template talk page) that bureaucracy does not belong in the template. Of course, you are welcome to re-open discussion and try to establish a new consensus that it should be included. But while Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia does operate on consensus--see WP:CONS--and until such time that a consensus is changed, it is appropriate to uphold the terms of the consensus (alternatively, if no consensus can be reached, than the result is no change to the article.) Furthermore, even though Wikipedia not a democracy, it is appropriate to allow other editors to contribute to the discussion when attempting to build consensus. This is true irrespective of how strongly you may believe logic or science is on your side, for the consensus-based decision-making process is Wikipedia policy. Anyway, I do look forward to discussing this topic with you more on the Template talk page. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I waiting for you respond on Template_talk:Forms_of_government. Thanks.--Burham (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

More explanations on Template_talk:Forms_of_government. Regards. --Burham (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Prototime, Since I did not received you answer up to now for my arguments I feel free to introduce Bureaucracy as form of Oligarchy.--Burham (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Show me rather that the consensus had been made on the base of Wikipedia rules and PARTICULARY what in this consensus is so logical that should sustain. Do not accuse me for obstinacy at illogical point of view. We will disagree with a point I will enter my arguments, you will enter yours. The reader will judge which the valid one is. WHY deprive reader valuable resources of information? Hmm... It is not ethical to kill FREEDOM of INFORMATION. Look somewhat like Communist censorship! I do not have license for only true, as well as you do not. Also, if majority has one opinion does not it mean it does not mean it is the CORRECT one. Only by freedom of speech the true goes up for the benefit of all.--Burham (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC) PS. You and other editors can believe on all kind of thinks, believe is not a fact, is not reality, and most important is not scientific. Wikipedia is not collection of believes. Is it?--Burham (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And now what wrong with class Cliques. Technocracy, Meritocracy, and Bureaucracy if not OLIGACHY should be somewhere. They are defined as GOVERNMENT, at least there http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bureaucracy. I definitely can find more. If your purpose is only DO NOT MENTION 'bureaucracy' for some reason. Personal one? --Burham (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Other proposal. (Hopping that you accept facts from sources 'bureaucracy' is form of Government. I think you did. Did not you? Looking on article 'Government' there is subsection 'Pejorative attributes' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government#Pejorative_attributes it seems to me that 'technocracy' and 'meritocracy' can be the theoretical Aristarchic (for me will not work in practice) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goverment#Aristarchic_attributes, but the 'bureaucracy' fits like a glove to the 'Pejorative'. If not let me know why? PS. I am not boring I attempt to build consensus with you on the base of readable sources. Or you feel different? --Burham (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. I see you are not so active. I understand you can be busy with more important think, but the work around 'Bureaucracy' must progress. I will make changes, possibly at the template you are more sensitive and fast. Please do not react just by reverting. I have right to expect reasons – You know I am not vandal. I doing my search, and we all ought to show subjectivity against our wishes.--Burham (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)--Burham (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User rights
I've added the rollbacker and reviewer rights to your account, as you look to be qualified to use both. INeverCry  02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate receiving both of those rights! I'm happy to be able to help. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing the Tea Party movement article
There is currently a discussion relating to the above topic at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion. Please take part in that.

Note that I feel there is a substantial difference in describing groups "at the grassroots level" as "grassroots groups", as there are questions of astroturfing. This issue is also being discussed. If you didn't mean to make any changes to substance, perhaps you could take a look at the related discussions and decide whether rephrasing your edit to reflect the tension regarding the grassroots-astroturfing controversy would be desirable. Other than that, I thought that your edit improved the text.

In case you are not aware, there is a suspended Arbcom case related to the editing of the TPm article, and the moderated discussion has been brought about as part of that process. Please comment there. The article is under discretionary sanctions.

I'd advise looking at this previous version of the page that had a subsection on the Constitution in the Agenda section for material and sources that will be addressed in the ensuing discussion.--  Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did notice the article is under discretionary sanctions, and I very much intended not to change any substance to avoid inflaming anyone. But I can understand tension over astroturfed organizations versus true grassroots organizations, and I have restored the wording "on the grassroots level" to the article. And thanks for pointing the old version of the page and the discussions on the talk page; I'll see if I can contribute to the discussions moving forward. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. We could certainly use some editors with expertise in the legal field in putting together a subsection on the TPm and the Constitution. My focus is more on history and social theory, with which there is of course some overlap with the law, but this is an entangled matter.
 * There are at least four papers by law school professors directly addressing the subject, and other academic sources discussing the Constitution have also been cited. What I would like to do is compose a text based on the previous version incorporating (don't mind restructuring, etc.) the recently introduced sources.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a new section with a working draft proposal, any input would be welcome, we are in need of NPOV editors on that page Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I just notice that you have a doctorate in jurisprudence, sorry about the "modicum" comment, I had thought I saw a userbox on your userpage stating that you were attending law school. Maybe I confused you with another editor with that box on their page. Anyway, I've redacted that comment.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sonic Colors
I apologize for the revert on Sonic Colors. It was an accident - I must have hit rollback on my phone yesterday and not even noticed, because I don't remember doing it. (Which is why there was no edit summary.) So yeah, I dont oppose your edit. Sorry about that. Sergecross73  msg me   10:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries! I wondered if something like that had happened. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

US legislation infobox
Hi There! I do a lot of articles using the Template:Infobox U.S. legislation. I noticed you made some updates to it. Maybe I was using the template wrong in the past, but most (if not all, I haven't looked at 100% of them) of the articles where I used this template now have broken title sections. i.e. the title does not appear at all. See Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act for an example where the title and short title no longer appear in the infobox. How do I fix this? Do I need to manually go to all of my articles (many found here: List of bills in the 113th United States Congress) and then do... what? I noticed that you changed the documentation section of the template, but did not add new fields to the printout below the chart. I pretty new to Wikipedia and templates... what's going on? Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi HistoricMN44, thanks for the message. I did indeed change the template, after a consensus for doing so established on the template talk page, but you're correct that the changes did break the title sections on the templates. Basically, four changes were made, all of which were intended to more accurately reflect legislative drafting/research terminology: 1) the "name" field was change to "shorttitle", a new "othershorttitles" field was created, the "fullname" field was changed to "longtitle", and the "acronym" field was changed to "colloquialacronym". Unfortunately changing these fields (and adding a new one) on the template page does require editing the infobox code on every page the template is currently used to reflect the new fields. I have been going through the pages on Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_U.S._legislation to fix the template fields on every page the template is used on, and so far I've made it down through the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but I have neglected to dedicate the time into fixing them all (I was hoping to receive assistance from the other editors who agreed to these changes, but so far I have been the only one making the edits). If you'd like to help, that'd be fantastic. Perhaps we can set a goal of getting through all of the pages by the end of the week? I don't think it'd take that long between the two of us. Also, thanks for pointing out that I didn't edit the printout text; I just went ahead and fixed that. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, just to note in case there's any confusion, the old "name" field (which is now the "shorttitle" field) never did show up in the main body of the infobox; it appears as the large text at the very top (and if the field left blank, the article name becomes that text by default). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for the quick reply.  That seems like... an insanely tedious task. :(  I do agree that adding the additional title spaces is helpful, but I would have been a little more hesitant to go through and redo all those pages manually.  I have several other projects I'm working on right now, but if I have some time, I'll try to help out.  Thanks for explaining. HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)